By some Muslims. Islam is not a monolithic entity and many Muslims manage to get by just fine without throwing fits about blasphemy, just as most Christians don't play much attention to the Biblical rules about not wearing mixed fabrics or cutting your beard.
What people don't seem to get is that many, many theists do not choose to follow all the rules in their particular holy book. How many Christian churches now endorse gay marriage, for example? You may call this hypocrisy or, indeed, heresy if you like, but you need to understand that being a Muslim does not necessarily mean that a person, their family, or their religious community holds identical beliefs to Osama bin Laden. If you judge people based on stereotypes rather than words and actions, you will judge them incorrectly.
You really can't stereotype the beliefs of one group of Christians (or Muslims) based on another group's.
Edit: It's odd that I get upvoted for pointing out that many Christians are not bigots, and downvoted for saying the same thing about Muslims.
Yes, my mistake. You can stereotype all Muslims as terrorists, just like you can stereotype all Christians as homophobes, or all atheists as sanctimonious jerks, or all black people as watermelon-loving gangsters. It's just, y'know, stupid and bigoted.
Jesus says he fulfills the law, and despite saying not a stroke of the old law should differ, that's a loophole to drive a truck through (on the Sabbath nonetheless).
Islam doesn't have the benefit of a second prophet coming along and saying "eh, it's all good".
Some Christians believe that none of the Old Testament applies, and only restrictions that can be derived entirely from the New Testament are still valid. This is fairly popular among the more liberal Protestant churches.
Some Christians believe that all laws apply, and would like to see a theocratic state that is actively enforcing all the Old Testament laws and punishments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism
Christianity absolutely has, in each of it's iterations, bodies of behavioral norms which believers seek to have instituted by the State, or institute by themselves (sometimes through violence) independent of the State.
> (Pakistan has Sharia courts)
The UK, for example, doesn't need the Christian equivalent (ecclesiastical courts, which, also, the established Church has) for blasphemy, because blasphemy against Chritianity has, for over 400 years, been cognizable as an offense against the common law, so the regular courts deal with that. [0]
> nor does it have much to say about statecraft in general.
Christianity has quite a lot to say about statecraft. Thanks to the success of European colonialism, much of what powerful branches of Christianity has said about it have been influential in shaping international law, both customary and treaty.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_...
"Jihad" has a close parallel in "Crusade", in both the violent and non-violent senses each term has within their respective religious communities.
I'll give you caliphate as somewhat unique, and at least without a close parallel in mainstream modern Christianity.
Americans (and others in the liberal democracies of the West) forget about things like 'blue laws' or attempts to prohibit gay-marriage, 'miscegenation' and other moral policing primarily because we have moved away from those practices. So while the current Christian version of sharia is somewhat limited to things like whether folks can buy beer or get their car fixed on a Sunday, it's still there exerting its influence.
I mean, swearing on a Bible? heh
Consider, in the Roman Catholic Church, the modern Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as compared to its early 20th Century predecessor, the Congregation for the Holy Office, and it's predecessor, the Supreme Sacred Congregation for the Universal Inquisition, both in terms of the body of law applied, the beliefs underlying that body of law, and the practical methods applied and the persons subjected to the jurisdiction of the Congregation.
Yes, of course. Why wouldn't it?
I feel like people don't understand how religion works in practice. A major religion is never a changeless monolith. Some practitioners will always insist that their way is the unchanging and eternal word of God, but even with a 2000-year-old book at hand, religion is a human institution and has always changed to fit the needs of the people practicing it. As a liberal Episcopalian, my religious practice couldn't be more different than a fundamentalist Baptist's, and both would be unrecognizable to a Catholic from a few centuries back.
...What do you think Islamic laws are?
Christians in India caused a riot because government proposed reservation for women. (Local christian community believes women should remain at home).
They are mostly ignored because well organized religious sects are politically powerful.
Living in muslim majority or heck even places where there are 20% muslims is absolutely hell. You will have to hear ajaan on a large loudspeaker all day, you will have to see kids hacking lambs in the residential areas during Eid and heck if you have to wear or celebrate Pagan festivals around the place of worship.
Liberalism is cool to preach while sitting in a Starbucks in Silicon Valley but incredibly hard to find it in nooks of certain parts of the world.